scf_get_evidence_assessment

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by indicating that this is an async polling operation triggered by scf_trigger_evidence_assessment. It also previews the status field, which implies the result may be in progress, adding value beyond the annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently enumerates the key returned fields and the required polling relationship. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the expected response contents (status, relevance score, findings, summary, audit metadata). The parameter details are fully covered by the input schema, and the async polling relationship is explicitly stated, making this sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the input schema already explains how to obtain each parameter (e.g., 'obtain from scf_list_evidence_files'). The tool description itself adds little about parameter semantics, so it stays at the schema-covered baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Get the AI assessment for an evidence file', and lists the returned content (status, relevance score, structured findings, summary, audit metadata). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely named siblings like scf_get_evidence_assessment_summary, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit usage context with 'Poll after scf_trigger_evidence_assessment,' telling the agent when it is appropriate to call this tool. It does not, however, clarify when to prefer a sibling such as scf_get_evidence_assessment_summary over this one, so exclusions are not fully addressed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.